Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	Richard,

	I am not sure what you are asking, perhaps you could clarify.

	Do you mean that there are implications for those who refer
	to the Bible as God's Word.

	Or if the Bible is God's Word then there are implications, such
	as people should take time to take in knowledge and thereby learn 
	about His will and purposes for mankind. 

	Phil.

I figured I'd need to elaborate.

Referring to the Bible as God's Word seems to imply finality and closure.

Referring to the Bible as God's Word seems to imply the exclusive authority
of its entire contents, an exclusive authority which the Bible doesn't even
grant itself.

Referring to the Bible as God's Word seems to imply that questioning
any portion of its texts constitutes a blanket rejection of the Bible.

Richard

Indeed, calling the Bible God's Word (or the Word
of God) tends to imply that one believes the Bible
when it claims to record the Word of God.

That's the most significant implication, in my opinion.

On the other hand, referring to the Bible as God's Word might simply suggest
a sense of message, such as in, "Any word from Jack?" or, "What's the good
word?"

Richard

    Could someone please post references to places where Scripture claims
    that the Bible as, we know it, is the Word of God.  I'm not trying to
    be antagonistic, I just want to do some reading and reflection on my
    own and these references would be helpful.

    Likewise if someone could post references to places where Scripture
    claims to be the work of man (however inspired), that too would be
    appreciated.

    	Eric

    Didn't I answer this question in another note yesterday?

    The Bible doesn't claim in itself to be authored by God.

    The Bible records of words and deeds of God in a way that reveals what
    God has done, what God is doing, and what God will do.  God has
    revealed the truth about himself and the nature of all creation. It's
    all about God and his creation from Genesis to Revelation.

    Extrinsic to the Bible itself, it is an act of faith that it is
    inerrant and inspired word of God.

Note 613.6

>...and inspired word of God.

I noticed you don't capitalize the W in word.

Richard

    I didn't notice that I didn't.

    re .6
    
    Thanks, Patrick.  Some people have claimed that the Bible DOES claim
    itself to be authored by God.  I was looking for chapter and verse
    pointers that may say explicitly that part or all of the Bible is the
    creation of human's.  Or conversely, that the Bible is the creation of
    God.
    
    For what it's worth, I think Luke goes through great pains to say that
    he personally is responsible for the work he did.  That it is his
    personal understanding of truth.
    
    Eric

    St. Luke was inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore had a personal
    understanding of truth, in a way that you or I do not have a personal
    understanding of truth.  Whether St. Luke was aware of it, I don't
    know.

    .6
    
    Pat,
    
    Serious question:  if the Bible does not, as you state, claim divine
    authorship. how *can* it be inerrant?
    
    Even if it is divinely inspired, by your observation, it was penned by
    *human beings*  My understanding is that Christian theology
    acknowledges that humans are not perfect -- how can what men write, no
    matter the source of the inspiration, be considered *inerrant*?
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

>    Even if it is divinely inspired, by your observation, it was penned by
>    *human beings*  My understanding is that Christian theology
>    acknowledges that humans are not perfect -- how can what men write, no
>    matter the source of the inspiration, be considered *inerrant*?

    This is easy. Man is imperfect. That doesn't mean they get everything
    wrong though. And inspiration is some additional help. Like a parent
    holding the bicycle while the child is learning how to ride. The child
    is not on their own so the child doesn't fall. Likewise, while
    following the instructions, for want of a better word, of the Holy
    Spirit one writes what is right.

    			Alfred

>Note 613.12                  The Bible as God's Word                    12 of 12
>CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist"                   13 lines   4-MAR-1993 08:09
>         -< the artist can create a masterpiece with imperfict tools >-
             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Interesting metaphor you've chosen, Alfred...because I am aware of no
    artists who ever claim that even their best works could not improved
    upon.  In fact, most artists I know claim that the day they create a
    work that has no room for improvement, is the day they no longer have
    anything useful to contribute to the arts.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

	I don't believe anyone ever claimed that God couldn't improve the
	Bible. But I don't think that man can.  

			Alfred

    re .10
    
    I don't mean to beat this to death, but this is something that has
    troubled me for some time (i.e. the Word of God vs. words from God).
    
    I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I gather you're saying
    that the words that St. Luke wrote, for example, are his own, however,
    the message (or lesson) that they convey was given to him by the Holy
    Spirit.  This is opposed to the theory that each actual word of text
    was written at the direction of God.  Would this be consistant with
    Roman Catholic teology?
    
    A question though...
    
    > ...in a way that you or I do not have a personal understanding of
    > truth.
    
    Has anyone since the first century had a personal understanding of
    truth to the same degree as the bible writers...?
    

re .2

	Richard,

	If there is a message from God to mankind in general, then one
	would expect this to be available to all peoples around the
	globe. The Bible has survived down to this day, which when you
	look into it's history it is a miracle in itself, and is widely 
	available in some 1800 languages and it's circulation is
	phenominal.

	So why consider the Bible?, well 2 Timothy 3:16,17 NWT reads 
	"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, 
	for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining 
	in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent,
	completely equipped for every good work." And Scripture is
	in harmony with it being "inspired of God", for example
	Revelation 1:1 NWT "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God 
	gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly
	take place." So the orginator of this message in the book
	of Revelation was attributed to God. Also in the Hebrew
	Scriptures such as Isaiah 22:15 NWT "This is what the 
	Sovereign Lord, Jehovah of armies, has said." It is common
	for royalty to use messengers to convey royal decrees in
	this way, without necessarily being there in person. Also,
	businessmen use secretaries, why not the universal Sovereign?.


;Referring to the Bible as God's Word seems to imply that questioning
;any portion of its texts constitutes a blanket rejection of the Bible.

	
	No I disagree, how do you know if it is God's Word unless
	you question it?, eg take in knowledge by reading it and
	meditating on it. Is the Bible harmonious? remembering that
	forty persons were in involved in writing the 66 books over
	a period of 1600 odd years. There are many strands that show
	that the Bible is inspired by God, one would be the harmony 
	found. There are many prophecies found in the Bible with
	detailed knowledge of the future, which would be impossible
	for humans to foretell, were they fulfilled?. Is it scientifically
	sound with things found by scientists at a later date?

	To me a blanket rejection means, not questioning the contents by
	leaving the book in the book case to gather dust. Or listening
	to higher critics, without examining closely for yourself. In
	otherwords, asking the question does the Bible really contradict 
	itself?

	If the Bible is really God's Word and contained in it's pages
	is prophecy that is being fulfilled today, then there are 
	certainly going to be implications. Seeing that inspired prophecy
	from God is fulfilled to the smallest detail.

	Phil.

    >Has anyone since the first century had a personal understanding of
    >truth to the same degree as the bible writers...?
    
    Actually, this is an important point, because it is the foundation of
    Quakerism that the Spirit can speak directly to each of us, not just to
    those who wrote the Bible.  George Fox's revelation which led him to
    found Quakerism was the inspiration that "there is One, even Christ
    Jesus, who speaks to my condition."
    
    The author D. Elton Trueblood, a passionately Christian Quaker, made
    the point in his book "The People Called Quakers", that Quakers
    traditionally have not described the Bible as the Word of God.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  613.6

  >The Bible doesn't claim in itself to be authored by God.

It certainly does.

Collis

Re:  613.9
    
Hi Eric,

  >Thanks, Patrick.  Some people have claimed that the Bible DOES claim
  >itself to be authored by God.  I was looking for chapter and verse
  >pointers that may say explicitly that part or all of the Bible is the
  >creation of human's.  Or conversely, that the Bible is the creation of
  >God.
    
Indeed, there is *a lot* of evidence that God wrote the Bible.
There is a lot of discussion of this in topic 18.  There is a
lot of discussion of this in the older versions of GOLF::CHRISTIAN.
There are a number of excellent books which deal with this.
And this is why I started topic 574.  I have been very negligent,
however, in adding contributions to this topic.  I promise to be
more faithful over the next few weeks.

It is my contention that it is more logical to believe that God
wrote the whole Bible that to believe any other alternative.  That
is why this is what I believe - the evidence that it is true is
much better than the evidence that it is false.

Collis

    re .9
    
    > Indeed, there is *a lot* of evidence that God wrote the Bible.
    
    Chaper(s) and verse(s) please, so that I might read and understand for
    myself.  With few exceptions, proponents of both camps have yet to
    provide biblical references.
    
    Eric
    
    

| <<< Note 613.19 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON "Shoot that star" >>>


| It is my contention that it is more logical to believe that God
| wrote the whole Bible that to believe any other alternative.  That
| is why this is what I believe - the evidence that it is true is
| much better than the evidence that it is false.

	Collis, quick question. If I'm reading what you meant wrongly, please
correct me. If God wrote the Bible, how was it that Paul had his own opinion? 
The reason I ask is it would seem that if God actually wrote it, then no 
opinions from anyone but God would exist. 



Glen

| <<< Note 613.14 by CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist" >>>




| I don't believe anyone ever claimed that God couldn't improve the
| Bible. But I don't think that man can.

	Alfred, VERY wise words. It's too bad it seems as though men are the
ones doing the "so called" improvements. I mean, isn't that why we have so many
different versions of the same book? 



Glen

| <<< Note 613.12 by CVG::THOMPSON "Radical Centralist" >>>



| -< the artist can create a masterpiece with imperfict tools >-

	But that doesn't mean the masterpiece is perfect. Look at the computer
industry. Improvements are being made all the time. 

| This is easy. Man is imperfect. That doesn't mean they get everything
| wrong though. 

	I agree with you Alfred. I seriously doubt that everything in the Bible
is wrong. I believe that most of it is probably true. But what happens is how
does anyone really know just what is correct and what is false with an
imperfect book? To *me*, the Bible is more like a history book. Like todays
history books, it doesn't mean the information listed is wrong, or correct.

| And inspiration is some additional help. Like a parent
| holding the bicycle while the child is learning how to ride. The child
| is not on their own so the child doesn't fall. Likewise, while
| following the instructions, for want of a better word, of the Holy
| Spirit one writes what is right.

	Then why people's opinions? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit have guided these
people from putting in their opinions? 




Glen

Something happens when you capitalize a word.

There's a difference between "truth" and "Truth"

	between "word" and "Word"

	between "light" and "Light"

	between "savior" and "Savior"

Peace,
Richard

> I mean, isn't that why we have so many
> different versions of the same book? 

Glen .22,

	Uh, I don't think so.

	Different translators will translate differently to be sure, but
also the English language changes.  We no longer speak King James English.
Paul's letters are a translator's nightmare.  He wrote lengthy sentences
and, I hear, rarely used punctuation.

Perhaps instead of versions, we should call them translations.  A possible
exception in The Living Bible, which is not translation, but a paraphrase.

Peace,
Richard

   RE: 613.22 <JURAN::SILVA>

   >I mean, isn't that why we have so many different versions of the same
   >book?

       It is amazing to what extent one will go to discredit a book when said
   book disagrees with one's "lifestyle".

   Tony

    .26
    
    >       It is amazing to what extent one will go to discredit a book
    >when said book disagrees with one's "lifestyle".
     
    I don't think Glen was trying to discredit the book at all.
    
    The fact that there are several "versions" of the same book is
    cause for confusion to a lot of people.
    
    What is amazing to me is how some use the Bible to justify their
    sanctimonious smugness.
    
    Richard

    Topic 51 contains a discussion of the various English language
    translations of the Bible.
    
    -- Mike

| <<< Note 613.26 by I8UU82::BALSAMO >>>



| It is amazing to what extent one will go to discredit a book when said
| book disagrees with one's "lifestyle".

	Tony, my lifestyle has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
What I was talking about is the different versions, period. I think Richard
said it better when he mentioned the word interpretations. How you ever got
lifestyles from what I wrote is beyond me. But of course some perceive what
the real reasons actually are, regardless of what someone says..... sigh...


Glen

Re:  613.21

Glen,

Here's your quick (yet complete) answer.

  >If God wrote the Bible, how was it that Paul had his own opinion?

I accept the Bible's claim that both the Holy Spirit and the human author 
wrote the Bible (not that it was simply one or the other as some might
think by your statement above).

Now, about Paul's statements in I Cor 7:

I Cor 7:10a
  To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):

I Cor 7:12a
  To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):

I Cor 7:25 
  Now about virgins:  I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment 
  as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy.

What does Paul mean when he says that he is giving the command, not the Lord
or that he has no command from the Lord?  The most obvious explanation (and
the generally accepted explanation) is that Jesus when He was here on earth
did not address that situation (or at least that Paul was not aware of Jesus
addressing the situation).  Now, what does this say about Paul's writing
being God-breathed.  Nothing.  It simply says he is not regurgitating what
Jesus has already said.

Is Paul allowed to express a God-breathed opinion?  Apparently he believes so
since he says he gives as judgment as one who is trustworthy.  Peter claims
that he does when he refers to Paul's writing as Scripture.  (II Peter 3:15-16).

If you wish to claim that expressing a judgment as one who is worthy by God's
mercy to do so is incompatible with the Holy Spirit writing through you,
the burden of proof is upon you.  Go for it.

Collis

Note 613.17

Mike,

>Quakers
>traditionally have not described the Bible as the Word of God.

Neither is it a comfortable part of my vocabulary.  And I have my doubts
that it was an integral part of the vocabulary of the Apostles or first
century Christians.

Richard

Note 613.30
    
> The most obvious explanation (and
>the generally accepted explanation) is that Jesus when He was here on earth
>did not address that situation (or at least that Paul was not aware of Jesus
>addressing the situation).

This is news to me!  Is this to say that much of what Paul wrote did
not result from encounters with the living God in Christ?

Richard

    I'm confused.  At one point you're saying that God authored the
    Bible.

  >>The Bible doesn't claim in itself to be authored by God.

  >It certainly does.

    And at another point you say that God AND humans authored the Bible.

    > I accept the Bible's claim that both the Holy Spirit and the human
    > author  wrote the Bible (not that it was simply one or the other as
    > some might think by your statement above).

    You also used the term "...THE human author..".  This seems to imply 
    that there was a single human author.
    
    Eric

| <<< Note 613.30 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON "Shoot that star" >>>



| Here's your quick (yet complete) answer.

	Thanks Collis. :-)

| >If God wrote the Bible, how was it that Paul had his own opinion?

| What does Paul mean when he says that he is giving the command, not the Lord
| or that he has no command from the Lord?  The most obvious explanation (and
| the generally accepted explanation) is that Jesus when He was here on earth
| did not address that situation (or at least that Paul was not aware of Jesus
| addressing the situation).  

	I agree with you on this Collis. Jesus probably never did address it.

| Now, what does this say about Paul's writing
| being God-breathed.  Nothing.  It simply says he is not regurgitating what
| Jesus has already said.

	Another question that has to be asked it what does this say about
Paul's words being God breathed? Nothing.

| Is Paul allowed to express a God-breathed opinion?  

	A God breathed one, yes. His own? I wouldn't think his own opinion
would make the Bible inerrant.

| Apparently he believes so
| since he says he gives as judgment as one who is trustworthy.  

	You're right Collis, Paul certainly does think so. But that doesn't
make it correct either. If the Holy Spirit was guiding Paul, one might think
that He would have directed Paul to say where the message was actually coming
from and not allow Paul to take credit for something he really didn't think of
to begin with. That is unless Paul really did think of it on his own. But then
the entire Scripture wouldn't be God breathed anymore....

Glen

Re:  .32

No, All I'm saying is that Jesus did not make a
pronouncement on this situation during His earthly
ministry (at least to Paul's knowledge).

I have made no comment whatsoever about Paul's encounter
with the living Christ.  Of course, you are familiar
with Paul's account, so you hardly need my instruction
on this matter.

Collis

Re:  613.33

  >I'm confused.  

Not a bad state to be in.  I think the Bible will help you to
get into a different state, however.  :-)

  >At one point you're saying that God authored the Bible.

The Bible does indeed claim this.  II Tim 3:16 has already been
mentioned.  Another section of Scripture to study carefully is
II Peter 1:12-21 which ends up, "For prophecy never had its origin
in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried
along by the Holy Spirit."

  >And at another point you say that God AND humans authored the Bible.

Feel free to share your interpretation of the Scriptures above.  
Inerrantists are totally agreed (to the best of my knowledge) on what
these (and similar) verses in the Bible are saying.  I find them clear
and to the point, myself.

  >You also used the term "...THE human author..".  This seems to imply 
  >that there was a single human author.

No sections of the Bible were written as a colloboration to the best
of my knowledge as claimed by the Bible.  Each psalm was written by
an individual, for example, not by a team of authors (such as the
Alpha Architecture Reference Manual).  I hope this explains what I
was attempting to say.

Collis

Re:  613.34

  >I agree with you on this Collis. Jesus probably never did address it.

Good.

  >Another question that has to be asked it what does this say about
  >Paul's words being God breathed? Nothing.

Agreed.

From this point on, Glen, you miss the point.  If you want to find
out what the status of Paul's words are, then you do not look into
sections of Scripture which are irrelevant to this issue.  We have
both agreed (see "agreed" above) that this section of Scripture
that you brought up is *irrelevant* to the issue.  You can look at
that Scripture all you want and never be able to reach a conclusion
one way or the other.

My parting question to you is, why did you totally ignore the
*relevant* Scripture that I supplied that speaks to the question?
I don't want an answer in the notesfile.  Simply an answer in your
heart.

Discussion closed from my end.

Thanks,

Collis

    re: .36 (Collis)

    Thanks for your input and pointers.  I'll put them to use later
    today.  However, my confusion was with what appeared to me to be a
    contradiction in you assertions that the Bible was at the same time
    authored by God and authored by God AND humans.

    Your explanation of single human writing versus collaborative writing
    was appreciated.  It was clear and to the point, and even I
    understood it :^).  Needless to say, I believe the Bible, in its
    present form, is the product of substantial editing and compilation
    over time... Particularly the Pentateuch.  I guess this would be more
    of a compilation than a collaboration.

    Eric

    Another good example would be the Synoptic gospels, which were deemed
    "synoptic" for a good reason--namely, that their stylistic and content
    similiarities point to the borrowing of texts.  The majority of
    scholars believe that Mark was used as a source for both Luke and
    Matthew, along with another source which has been labeled "Q".  A
    minority of scholars believe that Matthew was written first.  No matter
    how you look at it, there was clearly an interchange of material among
    those three authors; being written some time after the death of Jesus,
    they came about after oral traditions had developed over time.  
    
    -- Mike

Re:  613.40
Indeed, I fully accept that much of the writing both in
the New Testament and Old Testament were from existing
sources.  This writing did not occur in a void where
the author simply penned what God revealed to him
supernaturally (although God can and does do this).

That multiple people used common sources (even each
other's manuscripts as sources) appears clear when we
study the synoptic gospels as Mike points out.  As I
understand the Bible, this in no way removes the presence
of the Holy Spirit during the writing of a particular
gospel by a particular author.  Each is God-breathed.  If
we believe the Bible, even Jesus stated his truths multiple
times in various ways.

IMO, the JYPD theory is a bunch of junk initiated by
those who refuse to accept the Bible's claims of
authorship and which I fully expect to look very
different in 20 years than it does today (because it is
based on speculation rather than fact and interpretive
license rather than any well-defined methodology).  I
prefer to believe the claims of the prophets who, in my
opinion, know more about God than any of us.

Collis

Note 613.35

>  No, All I'm saying is that Jesus did not make a
>  pronouncement on this situation during His earthly
>  ministry (at least to Paul's knowledge).

So, that's all Paul had to work with in providing guidance in his letters,
what others had told him of the teachings of Jesus?

>  Of course, you are familiar
>  with Paul's account, so you hardly need my instruction
>  on this matter.

Yes, the only recorded encounter.

Richard

Re:  613.41

  >So, that's all Paul had to work with in providing guidance in his letters,
  >what others had told him of the teachings of Jesus?

It seems to me that you are being deliberately difficult.  Why do you
ignore the Biblical references that you are aware of that I have just
pointed out again that claims the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible (including 
the letters of Paul)?

Collis

    
    Sorry Richard, but I'll have to agree with Collis on this.  I'll
    admit that I haven't responded in this string because I thought your
    tone was rather antagonistic and your words deliberately difficult.
    I have no idea nor make any judgments as to whether that was 
    intended or not, I just know it made me uncomfortable.
    
    Despite that though, I feel I have a couple of thoughts to add...
    
    I don't think that referring to the Bible as God's Word implies
    finality.  Certainly, many O.T. prophecies were fulfilled and 
    documented in the N.T.  However, some remain outstanding till 
    the end times.
    
    Brings about an interesting question...has anyone seen any of the
    unfulfilled prophecies fulfilled by revelation through the Spirit 
    since the closure of the canon?  I mean those are the outstanding 
    issues of Christianity.  
    
    I also find it interesting that the word canon - means standard.  
    That the Bible is the standard that other "revelations" are to be 
    judged against and not the other way around.
    
    Believing that the Bible was written and translated under God's 
    exclusive authority is a matter of faith.
    
    I think the issue of questioning portions of Scripture is intent. What
    is the intent of your heart when you "question" the Scripture? I think
    there is a question of order first of whether you first accept things
    with your heart or your mind.  Some seem to think that the latter
    should come first.  I think it's easier to accept the Bible in your
    heart by faith and then grapple with it, then to grapple with it by
    your own wisdom and then try to accept it into your heart.
    
    Jill

Note 613.42

>It seems to me that you are being deliberately difficult.

It's not my intention to be difficult.

This is the way I understand you:  You're saying that when Paul said
(in effect) "This is not from the Lord but from me..." that it was because
Paul had no teaching from Jesus during his earthly ministry on that particular
topic.

Since Paul never met Jesus during his earthly ministry, Paul either had
to get those teachings from one of Jesus' followers or from revelation.
What you've said, which I quoted in .32, seems to eliminate the
the latter possibility.

It seems to me that if Paul had neither knowledge of Jesus' earthly
teachings *nor* the experience of direct personal revelation on a particular
topic, then it would be reasonable and honest for Paul to say, "This is from
me, not God."

Richard

    Q: have any prophecies been fulfilled that aren't documented in the
    Biblical texts?
    
    Daniel

Re:  613.44

  >It's not my intention to be difficult.

Hmmm.

  >This is the way I understand you:  You're saying that when Paul said
  >(in effect) "This is not from the Lord but from me..." that it was because
  >Paul had no teaching from Jesus during his earthly ministry on that particular
  >topic.

What I said was that there was no teaching from Jesus during his earthly
ministry on the subject (that Paul was aware of).  At least, this is what
Paul seems to be saying as I (and many others) understand it.

  >Since Paul never met Jesus during his earthly ministry, Paul either had
  >to get those teachings from one of Jesus' followers or from revelation.
  >What you've said, which I quoted in .32, seems to eliminate the
  >the latter possibility.

There are certainly other ways to obtain information.  I can't say as I
know any Mormon disciples or have had any revelation from God specifically
about Mormonism, but I sure know some things about it.  Obviously, you need
to include writings as a minimum.

  >It seems to me that if Paul had neither knowledge of Jesus' earthly teachings...

It is you who claim this, not me.  Paul, as is clear from his position of
one who persecuted Christians, knew quite a bit about them (enough to believe
that persecuting them was appropriate and convince others to do so).  But then again,
you know this already.  So why do you continue to propose beliefs that
you know are false, that you know that I know are false, and that the Bible 
clearly teaches are false?  If the logic leads to false conclusions, I'd
question the assumptions or the logic, not the conclusions.

  >...*nor* the experience of direct personal revelation on a particular
  >topic, then it would be reasonable and honest for Paul to say, "This is from
  >me, not God."

It is clearly not reasonable and honest for Paul to lie by saying, "This is from
me, not God" when the Holy Spirit directed Paul to write something.  That the
Holy Spirit directed him has already been shown by references in I Peter,
II Peter and I Timothy.

Of course, it would be correct to write, "This is from me and the Holy Spirit" 
or "This is from me" or "This is from the Holy Spirit" since all three are
truthful statements.

Collis

  >have any prophecies been fulfilled that aren't documented in the
  >Biblical texts?

I'm sure that not every prophecy ever prophesied has been included
in the Bible.  Every prophecy that God has prophesied through
people by God's definition, has either been fulfilled or will
be fulfilled.

There are many who believe that the gift of prophecy is still
poured out on us today.  Charismatics, for example, are well known
for this belief.  I personally believe that this is true.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    I'm sorry...that's a little vague.
    
    You see, I hear people frequently cite "fulfilled prophecy" as a
    measure of the Bible's accuracy.  However, those prophecies that I;ve
    heard about are mostly prophecized and fulfilled *in* the Bible.  Just
    from an objective measure, that is not very convincing.
    
    I was wondering if there are any *BIBLICAL* prophecies that are
    recorded as fulfilled *outside* of the Biblical texts.
    
    Hope this is clearer.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    Daniel,
    
    > However, those prophecies that I;ve heard about are mostly >
    prophecized and fulfilled *in* the Bible.  Just from an > objective
    measure, that is not very convincing.
    
    Considering that these writings were actually not one book when written
    I don't see how this logic stands up.  Individuals who saw prophecy
    fulfilled were guided individually by the Holy Spirit to write of their
    accounts.  So some sort of conspiracy with this "one book" seems a bit
    far-fetched to me.
    
    > I was wondering if there are any *BIBLICAL* prophecies that are >
    recorded as fulfilled *outside* of the Biblical texts.
    
    Many have stated that the Bible is well supported by many other
    historical sources.  For example what kind of fool would prophecy that
    the ancient coastal city of Tyre (I believe that's the right city if my
    memory serves me correctly) would not only be destroyed, but would not
    be rebuilt because all the building material would be thrown into the
    sea?  Without bulldozers this doesn't seem very likely.  Yet more
    recent discoveries did find that the ancient city of Tyre has been
    found to support the historical records that Alexander the Great had
    slaves take every stone, brick, and any other material that could be
    used to rebuild and had it thrown into the sea.  History backs up the
    account and modern day discovery reconfirmed it.
    
    Thank you for bringing these types of things up Daniel.  It makes
    me realize where I need to be doing some studying.
    
    Jill

Note 613.46

>What I said was that there was no teaching from Jesus during his earthly
>ministry on the subject (that Paul was aware of).  At least, this is what
>Paul seems to be saying as I (and many others) understand it.

Right.  This still says to me that you're saying Paul didn't rely on direct
spiritual communion to derive his advice, only on whatever knowledge he had of
Jesus' earthly ministry.

>  Obviously, you need
>  to include writings as a minimum.

Granted, but this would fall under the category of getting the teachings
from one of Jesus' followers (or a follower's follower).  These writings
obviously wouldn't include much of what we call the New Testament because
some weren't even written until after Paul's death.

>  >It seems to me that if Paul had neither knowledge of Jesus' earthly
>teachings...

>It is you who claim this, not me.

But I don't claim this.  It is what I hear you saying when you say what I
quoted in .32.  Perhaps I should have added "on a particular topic...."

[  >It seems to me that if Paul had neither knowledge of Jesus' earthly
> teachings on a particular topic...]

>Of course, it would be correct to write, "This is from me and the Holy Spirit" 
>or "This is from me" or "This is from the Holy Spirit" since all three are
>truthful statements.

I don't think so.  If a message is from the Holy Spirit, provided that
it is recognized as being from the Holy Spirit, then it should be clearly
stated as such.

Richard

Re:  .48

Daniel,

Oh, sorry.  I didn't understand the question.

I agree with part of what you're saying.  It is good
to look at prophesy and see how it stacks up.  I also
agree with Jill that is seems a little capricious to
discount evidence of prophetic fulfillment simply
because they were believers in God and the Holy Spirit
used them to write Scripture.

Unfortunately, I've never studied prophecy fulfillment,
so I don't have much data at the top of my head.  I do
remember some things that Josh McDowell wrote in
"Evidence that Demands a Verdict".  He does cover a few
prophecies in detail in this book which are very
informative.  I'll see if I can enter some of them
in here.

Collis

>Note 613.49             
>CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers"      

    
 >   Considering that these writings were actually not one book when written
 >   I don't see how this logic stands up.  Individuals who saw prophecy
 >   fulfilled were guided individually by the Holy Spirit to write of their
 >   accounts.  So some sort of conspiracy with this "one book" seems a bit
 >   far-fetched to me.
  
Hi Jill,

I suspect the logic of the arguments depends upon the assumptions one 
makes.  If, for example, one assumes that the idividuals were guided
by "the Holy Spirit to write their accounts," as you say, AND if one
assumes that those accounts were left untouched from then to now, you
are right.

I have a different set of assumptions, however. (I know, I know --
DUH. ;-} )  Assuming that the texts were not left alone but were
fiddled with and added to by subsequent authors and editors, leaves
open room for that argument and questioning.

for example: the story of Noah.  In one chapter, Yahweh tells Noah to
build the ark and to take a single pair, male and female, of all of the
animals.  However, in the next chapter, Yahweh repeats these instructions,
this time enumerating a greater number of pairs of "clean" animals than
"unclean" animals (7 to 1, I think).

There are a couple of questions that arise when I consider this passage:
1) WHy does Yahweh repeat himself?  Wasn't it clear the first time? Is
this just Yahweh's way of changing the order? (No, on second thought,
make that pastrami on RYE TOAST...) 2) The Laws of Kashrut are not
listed until MUCH later in the Bible, both textually and chronologically.
Noah, presumably, had never *heard* of clean or unclean animals (What?
You want I should wash them before they come on board?).

That second question is the tickler for me.  Essentially, what it says
to me is that unless Yahweh was being redundant for the heck of it, it is 
reasonable for me to assume that, at a later date, another editor inserted
those extra verses to give extra-weight to the laws governing kosher
diet.  If I had to venture a guess, I'd say they were inserted during
the Babylonian exile because at that juncture in time, following
rules like the dietary laws took on extra-importance to maintain a
national identity when separated from Israel.  I am not certian but I
believe that structural linquistics indicates that the second passage
is from a different idiom than the first.

My point in all of that (there *is* one??) is that if the above scenario
can happen in the Noah story account, it is possible that it happend
elsewhere in the Biblical texts.  Someone wanting to support an action
in the present could insert passages into past prophecy that support
the present actions.

    
>    Thank you for bringing these types of things up Daniel.  It makes
>    me realize where I need to be doing some studying.
 
I would be *very* interested to hear what you find...please post whatever
you discover!

regards,

Daniel

Re:  613.50

  >Right.  This still says to me that you're saying Paul didn't rely on direct
  >spiritual communion to derive his advice, only on whatever knowledge he had of
  >Jesus' earthly ministry.

Paul makes a statement about what Jesus did not teach upon (to his knowledge)
when Jesus was on earth.  This does not make an implication about how God
is using Paul when he writes the letter.  Clear?  I hope so.  It can't
explain it much clearer than that.  Perhaps the problem is not so much the
explanation but the conclusion you wish to reach?  Seems so to me.

  >Granted, but this would fall under the category of getting the teachings
  >from one of Jesus' followers (or a follower's follower).  

It appears, then, that one of the assumptions in the line of logic you used 
is wrong since Paul did have knowledge of Jesus and what he taught.

  >But I don't claim this.  It is what I hear you saying when you say what I
  >quoted in .32.  

Exactly.  It is what *you hear*.  I did not say it then and I do not say it
now.  That's why when you pursue it after I've denied it, I accuse you of
claiming it.  Since neither of us claims it, it is no longer an issue (I
guess).

     >>Of course, it would be correct to write, "This is from me and the Holy Spirit" 
     >>or "This is from me" or "This is from the Holy Spirit" since all three are
     >>truthful statements.

  >I don't think so.  If a message is from the Holy Spirit, provided that
  >it is recognized as being from the Holy Spirit, then it should be clearly
  >stated as such.

Well, I guess you can interpret under those assumptions if you desire.
Personally, I believe that reading into the text that which may not be
there is more dangerous than beneficial (e.g. "well, Paul said HE wrote
it so the Holy Spirit clearly could not have written it").  This danger is 
evident when the interpretation is explicitly refuted elsewhere in Scripture.

Collis

Re:  613.52

  >for example: the story of Noah.  In one chapter, Yahweh tells Noah to
  >build the ark and to take a single pair, male and female, of all of the
  >animals.  However, in the next chapter, Yahweh repeats these instructions,
  >this time enumerating a greater number of pairs of "clean" animals than
  >"unclean" animals (7 to 1, I think).

Well, upon one reading of the text, two explanations come to my mind.

 1)  God made one general statement to Noah and then later made these
     instructions more specific and detailed.  Does one instruction
     actually contradict the other?  No, the second just "adds" more
     to the first more.

 2)  The animals are divided into two categories in the first statement:
       a) those animals to be preserved 
       b) food to be eaten

     The extra animals that were "clean" were food for Noah and his
     family.

  >That second question is the tickler for me.  Essentially, what it says
  >to me is that unless Yahweh was being redundant for the heck of it, it is 
  >reasonable for me to assume that, at a later date, another editor inserted
  >those extra verses to give extra-weight to the laws governing kosher
  >diet.  

The Bible indicates that Moses wrote these verses.  The Law was given by
this time and the audience was expected to know what "clean animals"
were.  So, the entire objection is based upon God using the word "clean"
as opposed to detailing what animals to take in some other way.  Simple.
I have no problem with believing that God did not use the word "clean".
Or perhaps he did use it and define it for Moses.  Quoting in the Bible
(and in ancient documents in general) is not the 20th century exact science
that it is today.  It was perfectly permissable to convey the meaning instead
of the exact words and have it be an acceptable quote.

Hope this helps.

Collis

    .53
    
    Okay, I give up.  Thanks, anyway, Collis; especially for your patience with
    my thick-headedness.
    
    Richard
    

    Daniel,
    
    I see.  I don't agree with you, (DUH? :^) )  but I see what you're
    talking about.  For me this isn't a problem.  My boss tells us these
    all the time and then she'll come back and elaborate.  Also, God knows
    us intimately...we usually need things repeated and clarified.  Also,
    it might have been too overwhelming for him to know that he actually
    needed 7 clean to 1 pair of unclean.  As if getting one pair of
    everything wouldn't be overwhelming enough!  ;^)  Plus, there are many
    times where things aren't mentioned before you actually see the command
    documented.  I believe another example of this would be (sorry, I
    forget the reference) when Abraham dedicated a 10th of his possessions
    to the Lord.  Yet up to that time there was no practice of tithing
    mentioned.  Is this just an embellishment? Nah...For some reason not
    revealed to us, Abraham knew to do that. I think God did these things
    on purpose to cause people to have to believe His Word on faith.  
    Unless things make it to your heart, they really don't do you much
    good.
    
    >I would be *very* interested to hear what you find...please 
    >post whatever you discover!
    
    I'm debating going to Israel to...maybe I'll do some first-hand
    research.  ;^)
    
    Jill

Re:  .55

O.K. with me.  I'm well aware that these replies had a
lot more to do with jousting than an unbiased look
at Scripture.

Collis

    Collis .57,
    
    	You're wrong about my intentions and I resent you implying my
    purpose had to do with "jousting."  You, of all people, have no room
    to complain about biases when it comes to looking at Scripture.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .56
    
     Jill

    > My boss tells us these all the time and then she'll come back and
    > elaborate.  

    So are you saying that your boss is as good as God or that God is
    only as good as your boss, with respect to giving directions...

    :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^)

    Only funnin'... I know what you were trying to say.  It just struck
    me as funny.

    Eric

    
    Thanks for the levity Eric.  Much appreciated on a Friday afternoon
    that's moving way too slow!  ;^)
    
    BTW...just so everyone knows...that line should read...
    my boss tells us things all the time and then she'll come back
    and elaborate.   
    
    Jill

Sorry, Richard.

I call 'em as I see 'em.

The alteratives (that your perspective simply refuses
you to comprehend what I was saying or perhaps that
what I was saying did not make sense) did and still don't
appear to me to be likely.  But I'll accept you at your
word.

Collis

I'm having a hard time identifying anyone within this file who denies God.

It's not so difficult to identify those who take exception with certain
perceptions about the Bible.  But the Bible is not God.

Richard

    Quite so, Richard.
    
    Generally, the assertion is that God exists, but not as a person.
    Or that he exists as a person, but he doesn't have a will.
    Or that he has a will, but he hasn't made it known to the human race.
    Or that he made his will known to the human race, but the Bible has no
      precedence over any other writings which refer to the will of God...
    

    
    Richard, perhaps it would help if I define God as the God of the
    Bible.  I think others have stated they believed in other gods
    rather than the God of the Bible or that they attributed things
    to God that the Bible doesn't.  That's my definition that I'm
    working within.  Maybe that will help.  Not that you'll agree
    with it, but it might make where I'm coming from clearer to you.
    
    Jill

    re .64
    
    Well, that *is* more definitive.  However, as you've already stated,
    we're not likely to agree on precisely what attributes the God of
    the Bible possesses.
    
    Richard
    
    PS:  I appreciate your tolerance.  Some time ago, one member became upset
    and left just because we had a Zen Buddhist participating here.

    re .63

    ... Or that God exist and has a will, but that no human or
    institutional church has cornered that market on knowledge of Gods
    will.
    Or that Gods will's different things for different people and makes
    His will personally known through the power of the Holy Spirit...

    
    People are people, beliefs aside.  I'll talk with nearly anyone
    unless they are deliberately abusive.  Like you said it's not
    a social club...or I'm sure I wouldn't have been allowed in.  ;^)
    
    Jill

Re: .62 Richard

>I'm having a hard time identifying anyone within this file who denies God.

Other than me, right?  But admittedly I've been in read-only mode for a
while.  (Even I'm just an agnostic, though, not a real hard-line atheist.)

				-- Bob

    re:613.66                                                            
    Eric,
    
    What writings do you believe reveal God's will, if any?
    
    Do you believe that God is only knowable through personal experience?
    
    Pat

    .68,
    
    My oversight, Bob.  Good to hear from you.
    
    Richard
    

    re .69

    Pat,

    In my .66 I was just trying to expand on your list by adding other
    views that I have come known to exist.

    > What writings do you believe reveal God's will, if any?

    I don't know for sure.  I've been wrestling with this for some time and
    was hoping against hope that this discussion might help me.  At this
    point I'd have to say that my convictions fall most closely with the
    thoughts expressed by Mike Valenza.

    > Do you believe that God is only knowable through personal experience?

    For me, yes.  However, I wouldn't presume to tar and feather my beliefs
    on the rest of the human race.  Understanding God, Christ, and the Holy
    Spirit is an intensely personal experience... for that matter
    spirituality in general is a very personal thing.  Although we may
    come together to worship and pray, our relationships with God are
    private and individual.  Just as all children may come together to
    celebrate their dad's birthday, or Father's Day, they each have a
    unique relationship with their father... each with different
    expectations and responsibilities.
    
    
    Eric

We all deny God.  

The only question is the extent to which we deny Him.

We deny Him when we do not accept the *knowledge* about Him
that He has revealed.

We deny Him when we refuse to *trust* that what He says
is true.

We deny Him when we refuse to *act* out His Will for us.

Those are just some of the ways we deny Him.

The reason that many claim to "accept" God and to not deny
Him is because God is ill-defined (in their minds).  Once 
God is well-defined and His expectations and standards are 
clear, the denial that we all choose is obvious.

At what point does the denial I'm talking about become the 
denial that was probably meant when Richard says that
we don't deny God?  I'd say that point is the differing
point between Christian and non-Christian.  (Yes, I know,
I only say that because that's what the prophets of God
say.  :-) )

Collis

    We deny God when we accept unquestionably the god of the bible.  There
    are many places in the bible that the god of the bible is named as an angry,
    domineering, raging, baby killing, Lord over god.  That god has been
    evoced to justify war, genocide, slavery, the oppression of women,
    hatred of homosexuality.  The same bible also expresses contradictory
    images of a God of love, justice, mercy,  A God of the oppressed.  God,
    the servant of humankind.  Each of us chooses which image of God we
    wish to honor.  The many images of this God that I choose to honor are
    Goddess the mother, Goddess the Sister, God the brother, God/Goddess  the
    teacher, God/Goddess the guide and mentor,God the democratic nuturing
    Father, God/Goddess the friend.  These are the images that the church
    today and women today need of the Divine.  It is time to discard the
    angry, domineering, oppressive images that were needed by the male
    writers who wrote the bible 2-3 thousand years ago.
    the Guide

Patricia,

>    ...God,
>   the servant of humankind...


I appreciate that you don't see a significant portion of the Bible as having
any relevance for the God/Goddess images you have decide to honor.
Eph 1:12 tells me, however, that my reason for
existing is to be for the praise of Christ's glory and not the other way
around.  He owes me nothing and I owe him everything. I was dead and he made
me alive. Eph 2:1
   
--
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    .74 Paul,
    
    Haven't heard from you in awhile.  Good to hear from you.
    
    There are numerous allusions to God in Christ as servant in the Bible.
    Perhaps you are asking something else?
    
    I don't think Patricia is too concerned that her image of God doesn't
    match the popular biblical image of God - at least, not at the present.
    I know that for some this situation seems like it should be cause for
    great alarm.
    
    I would caution the wise to refrain from attempting to extinguish
    the flame of a match with a fire hose.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re .75 Richard


I'm mostly a reader as I have time, but everynow and then I'll jump
in when something catches my interest. 8-)

I guess what I was commenting on in Patricia's posting was that it seemed
to evaluate God from a human perspective in order to decide which attributes
of his, as mentioned in the Bible, were worth honoring.  My response, which
I've been hit with more and more recently, was based on my realization that
I exist for his glory, period!  To use the Romans 9 analogy, I'm the pot and he
is the potter.

I think I realize that Patricia and I have very different assumptions and her
reply moved me to reflect upon the relationship between creator and created.

I agree that Christ modeled for us the role of a servant in a way that none
of us can ever hope to achieve, but ultimately he did it for the praise of
his glory and not because we were worthy of being served.

--
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    .76  Thanks, Paul!
    
    Richard
    

    
    		     Escape from Cultural Christianity
    
    Cultural Christianity means to pursue the God we want instead of the
    God who is.  It is the tendency to be shallow in our understanding
    of God, wanting Him to be more of a gentle grandfather type who 
    spoils us and lets us have our own way.  It is sensing a need for
    God, but on our own term.  It is wanting the God we have underlined
    in our Bibles without wanting the rest of Him, too.  It is God 
    relative instead of God absolute.
    
    				From "The Man in the Mirror"
    
    
    The largest denomination in Western civilization is cultural
    Christianity.	
    				Carl Hallberg

    When professing knowledge of God's will, as derived from the Bible, I
    find it interesting how we interpret some things:

    1) how we project God's will in a specific instance to being His
       will in all similar circumstances.

       Is it possible that God may will different things in different,
       yet similar, circumstances?

    2) how we spend great effort to translate the smallest word from
       an ancient language to modern English, yet do not see Biblical
       lessons in their ancient cultural context.

       Is it possible that Jesus and his disciples may have taught
       spiritual lessons in culturally specific terms?  Is it possible
       that we, 1900 years in the future, blend the cultural into the
       spiritual?

       Is it possible that there is not deep inner meaning in EVER action
       and phrase in the Bible?  [The quote, often attributed to Freud,
       "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", comes to mind.] 

    3) how we iconify the Bible, and mystify its origins and compilation.


    Just some thoughts...

    	Eric
                                        

Eric,

It is a critical aspect of correct interpretation to
take into account the original audience and the
original context.  You are indeed correct to point out
that ignoring either of these factors is likely to lead
to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. 

Collis

re Note 613.79 by APACHE::MYERS:

>     1) how we project God's will in a specific instance to being His
>        will in all similar circumstances.
> 
>        Is it possible that God may will different things in different,
>        yet similar, circumstances?

        Now you're headed down the slippery slope of situation ethics
        -- my conservative friends assure me that God does not take
        the situation into account.


>        Is it possible that Jesus and his disciples may have taught
>        spiritual lessons in culturally specific terms?  Is it possible
>        that we, 1900 years in the future, blend the cultural into the
>        spiritual?
  
        I'm sure that we do this all the time.

        I was participating in a discussion over in the
        Catholic-Theology conference on the subject of modern
        translations of liturgical texts.  I was struck at how
        tenaciously some people cling -- and insist that they must so
        cling -- to verbal formulations originally created in another
        time, culture, and often in another language.  People act as
        if the use of language and the meaning of words were timeless
        universal constants -- as if the meaning to the reader/hearer
        were irrelevant, almost as if the traditional formulations
        were magical incantations.

        Language is dynamic and is shaped by culture.  There is no
        meaningful way of saying "this part is cultural" and "this
        part is timeless."  Some see this as such a problem, because
        they act as if we have a God-ordained right to absolute,
        true, and timeless knowledge, that they simply deny the
        nature of language.

        As I Corinthians 13:12 says, "For now we see through a glass,
        darkly."  Philemon 2:12 says, "...work out your own salvation
        with fear and trembling."  The certainty of knowledge is not
        ours in this life -- the presence of the living God IS.


>     3) how we iconify the Bible, 

        This one's easy -- just click in the top-right corner
        (top-left if you're using the XUI window manager).  :-}

        Bob

    I remember asking why the church uses Latin as a language for the 
    Roman Catholic service....when I was young. My father (real) answered
    because Latin "does not change".
    
    Comments?
    
    Marc H.

    I took Latin.  We had a verse:
    
    Latin's a dead language,
      as you can plainly see;
    It killed off all the Romans,
      and now it's killing me.
    
    ;-)
    Richard
    

The following was written by Rev. James W. White, of First Congregational    
United Church of Christ, Colorado Springs.

	What we all know is that Colorado Springs is a conservative
socio-political-econmic community.  Most churches of the community
complement that milieu.  In this mix, over 50 para-church organizations
with the constituency of similar persuasion have been added.  With so
many folk (1) in the churches and (2) in the para-churches, a "critical
mass" of the religious right has occurred.  These zealous folks are
acting out their new-found strength in the public arena (schools, politics,
libraries, etc.).

	Many folk.....are concerned, if not sometimes frightened.  My
strongest reaction, though, is to something else: these folks'
theological underpinning.  Though some will resist that naming, all are
fundamentalists.
===============

	By "fundamentalists," several specifics can be listed.  Foremost
on that list is belief in the "inerrancy of scripture," belief that there
are no errors in the Bible, that the pages of Christian writ hold God's
direct "Word."  As "God's Word," the Bible is taken literally: what is
written on any given page is God's objective Truth.

	What most people don't know is that fundamentalism's literal
inerrancy of scripture doctrine is a johnny-come-lately position.  Protestant
fundamentalism is less than 100 years old.  It was formalized only in 1912,
then supported by a series of publications of the second decade of this
century.  It grew up in reaction to the development in the 19th century
of science and "higher criticism" of the Bible.  Historically, then,
fundamentalism is a recent aberration from "great tradition" Christianity.
Luther, Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine and Paul would find it appalling.

	Fundamentalism's Biblical literalism, of course, generates a lot of
power, as narrow ideologies usually do.  Much of it is negative.

	Personally, I take the Bible much too seriously to take it literally.
My read on the Bible is that we are called to be attentive to its
"weightier matters:" love, justice, and mercy.

Re:  613.84

  >With so many folk (1) in the churches and (2) in the para-churches, a "critical
  >mass" of the religious right has occurred.  These zealous folks are
  >acting out their new-found strength in the public arena (schools, politics,
  >libraries, etc.).

Oh no!  Believers in God as He has revealed Himself are now organized and
working hard together to do God's Will on earth.  We'd better leave town right
away!

  >Many folk.....are concerned, if not sometimes frightened.  

Hey, even the Devil gets concerned when Christians unite.

  >Though some will resist that naming, all are fundamentalists.

This is labelling at its worst.  Although most of these people are clearly
not "fundamentalists", the author wants to put a label on them that is often
used derogatorily (usually without much cause).  And so he does.  The fact
that this label is not appropriate and that there *are* more appropriate
labels appears to be irrelevant (or worse, problematic) for the author.

  >As "God's Word," the Bible is taken literally: what is written on any 
  >given page is God's objective Truth.

What does he mean by "literally"???  Usually people don't mean "they do not
read the Bible primarily as allegory".  I expect that if he said, "they
believe that the Bible means what it says", this would be 

 - more accurate
 - less confrontational
 - useless in trying to stir people up

  >What most people don't know is that fundamentalism's literal inerrancy of scripture 
  >doctrine is a johnny-come-lately position.  

What nonsense.  This has been the historical position of the church since there was
a church.  Hey, the prophets even believed it and claimed it!

  >Protestant fundamentalism is less than 100 years old.  

Close enough.

  >Historically, then, fundamentalism is a recent aberration from "great tradition" 
  >Christianity.  

In what way is at an "aberration"?  He's defined one characteristic of the movement
(which, of course, he deferred relatively poorly).  He claims that this characteristic
is so bizarre that it is an "aberration" despite the fact that this has historically
been held as true through the centuries.

  >Luther, Aquinas, Anselm, Augustine and Paul would find it appalling.

I suppose that they would also find the charismatic movement which started in 1905
appalling as well.  Or the evangelical movement which started in the 1930s and 1940s
appalling.  Or the Theist movement which started in the 1700s appalling (well, I'd
agree with them there.  :-) )  Or the...

  >Personally, I take the Bible much too seriously to take it literally.

Personally, I take God much too seriously to believe that He doesn't mean
what He says.

  >My read on the Bible is that we are called to be attentive to its "weightier 
  >matters:" love, justice, and mercy.

I hardly would call your diatribe loving or merciful.  As far as just, see the
comments above.  It appears that you have been hoisted by your own petard.

Collis

    Uhh...I rest my case.
    
    Richard
    

Hebrews 4.11-13  The Word of God.

	Faith is the active thing is it partly because that which it
calls forth, the WORD OF GOD, is also LIVING AND ACTIVE.  Since the
invention of the printing press there has been the constant temptation
to think of the word of God as a deposit of doctrine or a book.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
For the Scriptures the word of God is the word which God addresses
to his creation.  It is the word he speaks through the prophet, making
his will known to his people.  It is the word of power of power by
which he created and sustains the world.  It is the word of apostolic
preaching, declaring the good news of what God has done in Jesus
Christ.  It is Christ himself as the sum and substance of God's
speech to man.  In all of these usages it is the PERSONAL ENCOUNTER
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
with the God who honors his creatures by addressing himself to them
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in the demand for responsibility and the offer of life.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The preceding is a portion from the Interpreter's One Volume Commentary
on the Bible.  Emphases mine.

    RE: .87
    
    I found a similar passage last night in the book "Introduction
    to the Bible" by William Barkley.
    
    The chapter I was reading concerned the question on if the Bible was
    the literal word of God. The author used the term, "inspired" instead
    of innerrant. Examples were sited to show that the Bible contained many
    errors...150,000 examples of mostly minor and not really important,
    but, none the less present. The point being that the Bible should not
    be read as if God moved the hand of the writer, rather the writer
    was putting down his/her experiences with "meeting" God. The conclusion
    was that the bible is the Word of God. Small difference, but, very very
    important.
    
    I suggest that those interested buy the Book. Its small and easy to 
    read, with a great deal of info.
    
    Marc H.

    RE .88
    
    Thanks for the info, Marc.
    
    	Eric

    That has been a favorite question of mine too.  How can the bible be
    authoritative if it is not inerrant.
    
    It is authoritative because it grasps me.  It makes a claim on me.  It
    speaks to me.  
    
    The Bible as the "Word" of God, could mean that through the Bible, God
    speaks to us individually.  But there is something in each of us that
    turns to that specific passage, finds inspiration and beauty in a
    particular place in the Bible.  I do not feel that I need to find all
    the bible equally grasping.  I know when I read versus like 
    
    "The first and greatest commandment is to love God with all one's heart
    soul and mind, and the second to love thy neighbor as thyself"
    
    "Let your light so shine so that others may see your good work and give
    glory to your creator who is in heaven"
    
    "The Spirit knows everything even the depth of God"
    
    "Make a joyful noise until the Lord.  Come into God's presence with
    singing"
    
    "Faith, hope, and love, abide these three but t he greatest of these
    are love"
    
    These are the verses I remember.  Why do I remember them?  Because the
    grasp me in a very deep way.  Because God speaks directly to me through
    these verses.  
    
    

    .88  William Barclay is a favorite of mine, as well.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    RE: .91
    
    Someday all learn to spell!
    
    Marc H.

    
    It's an observation that those who need to believe the Bible is 
    inerrant, have literally built their foundation with it, so when 
    someone comes along and threatens their very foundation, it can be 
    a scary thing.  The reactions that have occurred here, then, are
    quite understandable in this context.
    
    Then there are those who fly free in Spirit, and only need an
    occasional place to land for a bit, then take off again to soar.    
    For these people, since they have not erected their foundation on a
    structure, it is not at all scary to consider that the Bible is not
    inerrant.
    
    Cindy

 Interesting, particularly when one considers the statements Jesus made
 about those who build on sand, as opposed to a more firm foundation.




 Jim

    They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength, they shall
    mount up with wings as eagles...
    
    Sounds like soaring to me. :-)

    
    Bird perches are not made of sand that I am aware of.
    
    Cindy

	Cindy, liked the bird pearch note. :-)  


Glen

    RE: .93
    
    Very close to the truth.
    
    Marc H.

    True soaring comes from the freedom through Salvation.    Free from the
    law, free from bondage, free from condemnation.
    
    Does Christianity have rules which need to be followed in order to
    receive salvation?
    
    No.  Just receiving the gift of Jesus.  Romans 6:23
    
    Does Christianity have morals and values to which it is associated.
    
    Yes.  "If you love me, you will keep my commandments".
    
    
    If following the commandments won't get you into heaven, then why
    follow them?
    
    Because God as our creator knows what is best for us.  He knows what
    will create joy in our hearts.  By following the morals and values of
    God, after salvation, your life can become fulfilled.
    
    

    Re .94
    
    I totally agree with you Jim,
    
    But the paradox is which is the sand and which is the firm foundation?
    
    A book or a Living Spirit?
    
    Take your pick.
    
    
    Patricia

    re >99?
    
    "If you love me you will keep my commandments?"
    
    And what are those commandments.
    
    "To love God with all ones heart, soul, and mind, and to love one's
    neighbor as one's self"
    
    "Christian Simplicity"
    
    Patricia

    .101
    
    Absolutely Patricia...  Absolutely!  This is the greatest of his
    commandments... but there are more.

    
    Well said, Patricia!
    
    Cindy

    Re: soaring
    
    I've never been as free, until I found freedom in Jesus Christ.

Conversations around the nature of the Bible continue to abound
in this conference.  Naturally so since this is the major point
from which most other differences of opinion spring.

It seems that those who do not hold to the Bible as God-breathed
often times progress to the claim that those who do view the
Bible this way are doing something such as:

  - worshipping the Bible
  - leaving their minds behind
  - idolizing the Bible

The question that comes to my mind is:

Is it possible that God has indeed breathed the Bible and
that it is what it claims to be:  true, accurate, useful?

If this is indeed possible (and most all of us believe that
with God, all things are possible), then shouldn't we actually
believe what the Bible say?

Wouldn't we then be called idolizers and worshippers of the
Bible?

What I'm saying is that it seems to me that simply believing the
Bible to be true is enough to be branded.  If this is not the case,
I'd love to hear it.  Who do you know that believes the Bible to
be true that you don't apply these labels to?  And what seperates
these people from those whom you do apply the labels to?

Collis

    I believe the Bible to be true, but not entirely factual.  I
    don't believe the Bible to be entirely free of blemishes or
    errors, as is proposed by some.
    
    I do consider the Bible sacred, and a sourcebook of truth (or
    Truth, if you prefer).  I believe much of the Bible to be
    inspired.
    
    I take the Bible very seriously.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .106
    
    Same here. Inspired is the "key" word.
    
    Marc H.

	I view the Bible as more of a history book. The claim of inerrancy
would have to mean there are no errors. We have errors with printing, verses
that were once in, taken out and readded at a later date, people's opinions,
too many different versions of the same book, yet even with this happening
because of the free will we have, we are to believe that free will never took
place at any other time. Uh huh.... while I get a lot of answers to a lot of
things from the Bible, it is ONLY because God has directed me there for those
answers. I don't hold a book above/even with God, but as one of His many tools.


Glen

It has been commented on by many that this is the only book of the Bible in
which there is no name of God, or divine title, in the Book.  However, the name
of God appears in a number of places if one knows how and where to look.  The
name itself, Esther, incidentally, means "Something hidden!"

The Invisible Protector
-----------------------
God had declared that if His people forsook Him, He would hide His face from
them (Deuteronomy 31:16-18).  Here in this very episode, that threat was
fulfilled.  Even though He was hidden from them, He still was working for them.
The name of God is hidden no less than 5 times in acrostics in the text.  (An
acrostic is a word or phrase made up of a preselected pattern of letters
extracted from a text.)  Four times it appears as YHWH (Yahweh); once as EHYH
(I AM).

First Acrostic
--------------
The first acrostic is in verse 1:20

           "1. Hi    2. Vekal     3. Hannashim    4. Yittenu"
            1. it    2. and all   3. the wives    4. shall give

It is formed by initial letters, for the event was initial; and the name is
spelled backward because God was turning back the counsels of man.

Second Acrostic
---------------
The second acrostic is in verse 5:4

           "1. Yabo       2. Hammelek    3. VeHamin      4. Hayyom"
            1. let come   2. the kind    3. and Haman    4. this day

It is formed by the initial letters as God is initiating His action; but the
name is spelled forward because He is ruling and causing Esther to act.

Third Acrostic
--------------
The third acrostic is in verse 5:13

           "1. zeH        2. 'eynennV    3. shoveH       4. leY"
            1. this       2. availeth    3. nothing      4. to me

It is formed by the final letters, for Haman's end was approaching.  But it is
spelled backward since God was overruling Haman's gladness and turning back
Haman's counsel.

Fourth Acrostic
---------------
This fourth one in verse 7:7, like the third, is formed by the final letters,
for Haman's end had come.  But it is spelled forward like the first, for God was
ruling and bringing about the end He had determined.

           "1. kY         2. kilethaH    3. 'elayV           4. hara'aH"
            1. that       4. evil        2. was determined   3. against him

Overall Design
--------------
Each of the 4 acrostics, revealing the YHWH, involves the utterance of a
different speaker:

1. Menucan, 1:20
2. Esther, 5:4
3. Haman, 5:13
4. By the writer, 7:7

The first 2 acrostics are a pair, having the name formed by the initial letters
of the 4 words.  The last 2 are a pair, having the name formed by the final
letters of the 4 words.  The first and third acrostics are a pair having the
name spelled backwards.  The second and fourth are a pair, having the name
spelled forward.  They thus form an alternation:

Backward
   Forward
Backward
   Forward

The first and third, in which the name is formed backwards, are from text spoken
by Gentiles.  The second and fourth, in which the name is formed forward, are
from text spoken by Israelites.  The first and second form a pair connected with
queens and banquets.  The third and fourth are a pair being connected with
Haman.  Here then is an introversion:

1. Words spoken concerning a queen
         2. Words spoken by a queen
         3. Words spoken by Haman
4. Words concerning Haman

In the 2 cases where the name is spelled backwards, God is seen overruling the
counsels of the Gentiles for the accomplishment of His own purposes.  Where the
name is spelled forward, He is ruling directly in the interests of His own
people, although it was unknown to them at the time.  It is remarkable also that
in the 2 cases where the name is formed by the initial letters, the facts
recorded are initial also; and in an occasion in which God's overruling was
initiated.  In the last 2 cases where the name is formed by the final letters,
the events are final also, and lead quickly to the end toward which God was
working.

Fifth Acrostic
--------------
There is still another acrostic in verse 7:5, which does not spell YHWH, but
rather the remarkable EHWH.  It is formed by final letters, and the name is
spelled backward.  It appears in the dramatic moment when the king seeks the
identity by asking, "Who is he, and where is he, that durst presume in his heart
to do so?"  (That is, to arrange for the destruction of Queen Esther and her
people).  Hidden in this phrase is the very name that God announced from the
burning bush:

           "1. huE        2. zeH         3. veeY        4. zeH"
            1. who is he  2. this [man]  3. and where   4. [is] this [man]

This is the "I AM," the very name God announced when He delivered His people out
of the land of Pharaoh (Exodus 2:23-25; 3:14-15) in the past, and who has now
come to deliver them again out of the hand of Haman.

Evidence of Design
------------------
In these 5 acrostics we have something far beyond coincidence.  (The rabbis
claim that "coincidence is not a kosher word!")  His presence, ever working for
His people and accomplishing the fulfillment of His purposes, was hidden from
view, just as it is here.

We possess 66 books, penned by 40 authors over thousands of years, yet the more
we investigate, the more we discover that the books of the Bible are all
actually elements of a highly integrated message system in which every detail,
every number, the names, even the elemental structures within the text itself,
are clearly the result of intricate and skillful "engineering."  The more we
look, the more we realize that there is still much more hidden and thus reserved
for the diligent inquirer.  Would you expect anything less in the Word of God
Himself?

Other Acrostics
---------------
Other examples of hidden discoveries within the Biblical text which have been
discovered:

The "Torah" hidden in the text of the Torah and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in
the genealogy of Genesis 5.  I have both of these available if anyone is
    interested. Another is the the Aleph (Alpha) and the Tau (Omega) in
Zechariah 12:10.  Compare this to the multitude of verse in the OT and NT that
speaks of God being the "first and last" as well as the Alpha and the Omega.